Three years ago I clicked on the "FREE SHIPPING" link when I purchase some items. I do not know why I was not informed that this free shipping was going to cost me an annual membership of $107 a year. They said a pop-up came up and in small print it states the annual membership fee. I have pop-up blocker and need reading glasses too. I never saw that message about the membership fee. I often bought through Amazon over the past three years so with my busy schedule and frequent purchases I didn't notice the $107 charge till recently. Amazon refuses to pay the money back. My shipping would have been much less had I not clicked on the "FREE SHIPPING" link! I REFUSE DO BUSINESS WITH AMAZON AGAIN! I contacted a class action attorney who told me about the two laws below that our SUPREME COURT passed. IT IS URGENT THAT WE VOTE WISELY THIS ELECTION SEASON! Corporate America is buying our freedoms from the REPUBLICANS who constantly side with Corporate America instead of the united States citizen. PLEASE CLICK ON LINKS TO READ THE ARTICLES OR READ THE ARTICLES THAT I PASTED BELLOW! The ‘Citizens United’ decision and why it matters http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters?gclid=CjwKEAjwuYOeBRCy3pLljpjDkDcSJAAhA4mt-eNDxKF2qYF9gaktIoR9tFzDPuKuPX-ZjEB_PmZaoBoCdGjw_wcB By now most folks know that the U.S. Supreme Court did something that changed how money can be spent in elections and by whom, but what happened and why should you care? The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates. In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate. The decision did not affect contributions. It is still illegal for companies and labor unions to give money directly to candidates for federal office. The court said that because these funds were not being spent in coordination with a campaign, they “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” So if the decision was about spending, why has so much been written about contributions? Like seven and eight-figure donations from people like casino magnate and billionaire Sheldon Adelson who, with his family, has given about $40 million to so-called “super PACs,” formed in the wake of the decision? For that, we need to look at another court case — SpeechNow.org v. FEC. The lower-court case used the Citizens United case as precedent when it said that limits on contributions to groups that make independent expenditures are unconstitutional. And that’s what led to the creation of the super PACs, which act as shadow political parties. They accept unlimited donations from billionaires, corporations and unions and use it to buy advertising, most of it negative. The Supreme Court kept limits on disclosure in place, and super PACs are required to report regularly on who their donors are. The same can’t be said for “social welfare” groups and some other nonprofits, like business leagues. These groups can function the same way as super PACs, so long as election activity is not their primary activity. But unlike the super PACs, nonprofits do not report who funds them. That’s disturbing to those who favor transparency in elections. An attempt by Congress to pass a law requiring disclosure was blocked by Republican lawmakers. The Citizens United decision was surprising given the sensitivity regarding corporate and union money being used to influence a federal election. Congress first banned corporations from funding federal campaigns in 1907 with the Tillman Act. In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act extended the ban to labor unions. But the laws were weak and tough to enforce. It wasn’t until 1971 that Congress got serious and passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, which required the full reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures. It limited spending on media advertisements. But that portion of the law was ruled unconstitutional — and that actually opened the door for the Citizens United decision. Spending is speech, and is therefore protected by the Constitution — even if the speaker is a corporation. AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/att-mobility-v-concepcion/ Docket No. 09-893 Op. Below 9th Cir. Argument Nov 9, 2010 Tr.Aud. Opinion Apr 27, 2011 Vote 5-4 Author Scalia Term OT 2010 Holding: California state contract law, which deems class-action waivers in arbitration agreements unenforceable when certain criteria are met, is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act because it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Plain English Holding: Under the Federal Arbitration Act, California must enforce arbitration agreements even if the agreement requires that consumer complaints be arbitrated individually (instead of on a class-action basis). Judgment: Ninth Circuit Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on April 27, 2011. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters?gclid=CjwKEAjwuYOeBRCy3pLljpjDkDcSJAAhA4mt-eNDxKF2qYF9gaktIoR9tFzDPuKuPX-ZjEB_PmZaoBoCdGjw_wcB WHO WILL YOU VOTE FOR THIS YEAR? CUT AND PASTE THESE LAWS AND PASS THEM ON.